About six months ago, I wrote about how the RIAA was going after Internet Radio broadcasters by charging obscene royalties on airplay.  In that entry, I predicted that after squashing Internet Radio like a bug, the RIAA would put its sights on terrestrial broadcasters next.  And I was right.  Congress, at the urging of the RIAA, is now considering a bill that would force terrestrial broadcasters to pay for the music that they play.

Currently, terrestrial broadcasters such as Clear Channel (KISS-FM, The River, WHP, Bob) and Cumulus (Wink 104, WTPA, Hot 92) don’t actually pay performance royalties to the artists.  They argue that because of the promotion provided, artists are already being “paid” in the form of greater awareness, and thus deserve no further compensation.

It’s funny that they say this.  When the debate was first going round about Internet Radio royalties, the National Association of Broadcasters — a lobby group representing terrestrial broadcasters — claimed that Internet Radio stations were being unfairly spared the cost of the expensive fees that terrestrial broadcasters had to suffer through.  At that time, the NAB was entirely for the increased royalties, for reasons entirely clear to anyone who read their statements on Internet Radio:  “We will beat you – as we have beaten those change agents in the past.”

However, now that the RIAA has companies like Cumulus and Clear Channel squarely in their sights, the NAB’s story has changed.  According to Dennis Wharton of the NAB:

“After decades of Ebenezer Scrooge-like exploitation of countless artists, RIAA and the foreign-owned record labels are singing a new holiday jingle to offset their failing business model.  NAB will aggressively oppose this brazen attempt to force America’s hometown radio stations to subsidize companies that have profited enormously through the free promotion provided by radio airplay.”

Stopping just shy of accusing the RIAA of supporting terrorism and saying that “the foreigners” kill puppies, Wharton’s emotionally-laced speech is amusing at best.  I’m expecting at least one future press release that attempts to demonstrate a link between Internet Radio and Al-Qaeda.  When you have to resort to peppering your speech with emotional triggers such as “explotation”, “foreign-owned”, “hometown”, and then proceed to completely contradict your stated position in only two sentences, you tend to rapidly lose credibility.  Moreover, for the NAB to suggest that they are anything other than wholly against innovation and fairness requires the deletion of roughly 2/3rds of their press releases.  They have gone after satellite broadcasters, Internet broadcasters, MP3 player manufacturers, and anyone else who dares suggest any means of entertainment other than that which comes from a dues-paying NAB member.

And that’s why I think we might be on to something here.

I’m no big fan of the RIAA.  While they do exactly what the labels and artists pay them to do — boost profitability at any cost — they do so in an incredibly anti-consumer, anti-competition, anti-innovation manner.  But then again, so does the NAB.  And for that matter, so do the terrestrials.  Clear Channel, Cumulus, and others can more than afford to pay out increased royalties without touching their bottom line.  They simply don’t want to.  What we’re seeing here is a fight between two gigantic mercenaries; the artists have sent the RIAA, the broadcasters have sent the NAB, and the two will duke it out in Congress.

So what happens when two or more evils fight each other?  Who wins?  The answer is simple:  Not you.